MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311163814 · doi:10.18280/ts.390506

Continuous Heartbeat Prediction Using a Face Recognition Algorithm

2022· article· en· W4311163814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed A. Alsheikhy, Yahia Said, Tawfeeq Shawly

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeartbeatMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceFace (sociological concept)SegmentationGovernment (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceWaveformComputer visionAlgorithmMachine learningComputer securityData miningTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health providers use the ECG machine to get information about the heart. This information plays a significant role since it tells them about the status of the heart. The ECG machine presents this information in a waveform. During the Covid-19 pandemic, all governments have placed numerous rules and policies to protect people from the virus and from spreading it. One of the rules and policies is to prevent touching surfaces in public places. However, in health care centers, touching surfaces can’t be avoided completely since there is a need to touch them or place some wires on the human body such as placing wires to use the ECG machine. In Saudi Arabia, the government has placed a policy in all its buildings, public places, and the private sector to measure the temperature at the entrance. Due to this situation, the idea has come into mind to have a touchless method to measure the heartbeat rate. In this paper, proposing a feasible and reliable method to estimate a continuous heartbeat rate is presented. It uses a face recognition approach to predict the heart pulse continuously in real-time according to colors intensity measurement. Using a segmentation algorithm is involved since the approach takes its input from a video or an image. Several experiments have been conducted on volunteers to verify the obtained results and measure their relative errors. Consequently, the errors are less than 7% which is quite acceptable. At the end of this article, a comparative assessment is performed between the presented approach and some works from literature. This assessment is conducted based on the methodologies being utilized and applied and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Furthermore, it shows whether those methods require physical contact or not. The obtained results indicate that the implemented system herein outperforms other state-of-the-art methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207